Because the CMB is so uniform, many thought it came from evenly spread matter soon after a big bang. But such uniformly distributed matter would hardly gravitate in any direction; even after tens of billions of years, galaxies and much larger structures would not evolve. In other words, the big bang did not produce the CMB (j). [See pages 402–404.]

Will Saunders et al., “The Density Field of the Local Universe,” Nature, Vol. 349, 3 January 1991, pp. 32–38.

“But this uniformity [in the cosmic microwave background radiation, CMB] is difficult to reconcile with the obvious clumping of matter into galaxies, clusters of galaxies and even larger features extending across vast regions of the universe, such as ‘walls’ and ‘bubbles’. ” Ivars Peterson, “Seeding the Universe,” Science News, Vol. 137, 24 March 1990, p. 184.

As described below, one of the largest structures in the universe, “The Great Wall,” was discovered in 1989. It consists of tens of thousands of galaxies lined up in a wall-like structure, stretching across half a billion light-years of space. It is so large that none of its edges have been found. An even larger structure, the Sloan Great Wall, was discovered in 2003 and is the largest structure known in the universe.

“The theorists know of no way such a monster [the Great Wall] could have condensed in the time available since the Big Bang, especially considering that the 2.7 K background radiation reveals a universe that was very homogeneous in the beginning.” M. Mitchell Waldrop, “The Large-Scale Structure of the Universe Gets Larger—Maybe,” Science, Vol. 238, 13 November 1987, p. 894.

“The map’s most eye-catching feature is the Sloan Great Wall of galaxies, a clustering of galaxies that stretches 1.37 billion light-years across the sky and is the largest cosmic structure ever found. Astronomers worried that such a humongous structure, 80 percent bigger than the famous Great Wall of galaxies first discerned in a sky survey 2 decades ago, might violate the accepted model of galaxy evolution.” Ron Cowen, “Cosmic Survey,” Science News, Vol. 164, 1 November 2003, p. 276.

For many years, big bang theorists searched in vain with increasingly precise instruments for temperature concentrations in the nearly uniform CMB. Without concentrations, matter could never gravitationally contract around those concentrations to form galaxies and galaxy clusters. Finally, in 1992, with great fanfare, an announcement was made in the popular media that slight concentrations were discovered. Major shortcomings were not mentioned:

The concentrations were only one part in 100,000—not much more than the errors in the instruments. Such slight concentrations could not be expected to initiate much clustering. As Margaret Geller stated, “Gravity can’t, over the age of the universe, amplify these irregularities enough [to form huge clusters of galaxies].” Travis, p. 1684.

“[The] data are notoriously noisy, and the purported effect looks remarkably like an instrumental glitch: it appears only in one small area of the sky and on an angular scale close to the limit of the satellite’s resolution.” George Musser, “Skewing the Cosmic Bell Curve,” Scientific American, Vol. 281, September 1999, p. 28.

Slight errors or omissions in the many data processing steps could easily account for the faint signal.

Reported variations in the CMB spanned areas of the sky that were 100 or 1,000 times too broad to produce galaxies.

“... mysterious discrepancies have arisen between [the inflationary big bang] theory and observations ... It looks like inflation is getting into a major jam.” Glen D. Starkman and Dominik J. Schwarz, “Is the Universe Out of Tune?” Scientific American, Vol. 293, August 2005, pp. 49, 55.

The slight temperature variations (0.00003°C) detected have a strong statistical connection with the solar system. [Ibid., pp. 52–55.] They probably have nothing to do with a big bang.

Who am I kidding - 31 pages of this self-spamming act and I'm holding out for it to have a reasonable conclusion?
More likely, he feels that as long as he keeps posting, his confabulations remain true... in which case there will be no end to it.

Helium. Contrary to what is commonly taught, the big bang theory does not explain the amount of helium in the universe; the theory was adjusted to fit the amount of helium (k). Ironically, the lack of helium in certain types of stars (B type stars) (l) and the presence of beryllium and boron in “older” stars (m) contradicts the big bang theory.

k. “And no element abundance prediction of the big bang was successful without some ad hoc parameterization to ‘adjust’ predictions that otherwise would have been judged as failures.” Van Flandern, p. 33.

“The study of historical data shows that over the years predictions of the ratio of helium to hydrogen in a BB [big bang] universe have been repeatedly adjusted to agree with the latest available estimates of that ratio as observed in the real universe. The estimated ratio is dependent on a ratio of baryons to photons (the baryon number) that has also been arbitrarily adjusted to agree with the currently established helium to hydrogen ratio. These appear to have not been predictions, but merely adjustments of theory (‘retrodictions’) to accommodate current data.” Mitchell, p. 7.

A big bang would produce only hydrogen, helium, and lithium, so the first generation of stars to somehow form after a big bang should consist only of those elements. Some of these stars should still exist, but despite extensive searches, none has been found (n).

n. “One might expect Population III stars [stars with only hydrogen and helium and no heavier elements] to have the same sort of distribution of masses as stars forming today, in which case some should be small enough (smaller than 0.8 the mass of the Sun) still to be burning their nuclear fuel. The problem is that, despite extensive searches, nobody has ever found a zero-metallicity star.” Bernard Carr, “Where Is Population III?” Nature, Vol. 326, 30 April 1987, p. 829.

“Are there any stars older than Population II [i.e., Population III stars]? There should be, if our ideas about the early history of the universe [i.e., the big bang theory] are correct....There is no statistically significant evidence for Population III objects [stars].” Leif J. Robinson, “Where Is Population III?” Sky and Telescope, July 1982, p. 20.

“Astronomers have never seen a pure Population III star, despite years of combing our Milky Way galaxy.” Robert Irion, “The Quest for Population III,” Science, Vol. 295, 4 January 2002, p. 66.

Supposedly, Population II stars, stars having slight amounts of some heavy elements, evolved after Population III stars. Predicted characteristics of Population II stars have never been observed.

“Spectral studies of ancient [Population II] stars in the Milky Way haven’t turned up anything so distinctive [as the chemical elements that should be present], [Timothy] Beers notes, but the search continues.” Ibid., p. 67.

Other Problems. If the big bang occurred, we should not see massive galaxies at such great distances, but such galaxies are seen. [See “Distant Galaxies” on page 396.] A big bang should not produce highly concentrated (o) or rotating bodies (p). Galaxies are examples of both. Nor should a big bang produce tightly clustered galaxies (q). Also, a large volume of the universe should not be—but evidently is—moving sideways, almost perpendicular
to the direction of apparent expansion (r).

o. “There shouldn’t be galaxies out there at all, and even if there are galaxies, they shouldn’t be grouped together the way they are.” James Trefil, The Dark Side of the Universe (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1988), p. 3.

p. “Galaxy rotation and how it got started is one of the great mysteries of astrophysics. In a Big Bang universe, linear motions are easy to explain: They result from the bang. But what started the rotary motions?” William R. Corliss, Stars, Galaxies, Cosmos: A Catalog of Astronomical Anomalies (Glen Arm, Maryland: The Sourcebook Project, 1987), p. 177.

q. “One of the great challenges for modern cosmology is to determine how the initial power spectrum evolved into the spectrum observed today. ... the universe is much clumpier on those scales [600–900 million light-years] than current theories can explain.” Stephen D. Landy, “Mapping the Universe,” Scientific American, Vol. 280, June 1999, p. 44.

If a big bang occurred, equal amounts of matter and antimatter should have been made. For every charged particle in the universe, the big bang should have produced an identical particle but with the opposite electrical charge (s). (For example, the negatively charged electron’s antiparticle is the positively charged positron.) Only trivial amounts of antimatter have ever been detected, even in other galaxies (t).

s. “It is a fundamental rule of modern physics [namely, the big bang theory] that for every type of particle in nature there is a corresponding ‘antiparticle’.” Steven Weinberg, The First Three Minutes (New York: Bantam Books, Inc., 1977), p. 76.

“If the universe began in the big bang as a huge burst of energy, it should have evolved into equal parts matter and antimatter. But instead the stars and nebulae are made of protons, neutrons and electrons and not their antiparticles (their antimatter equivalents).” Kane, pp. 73–74.

“But to balance the cosmic energy books—and to avoid violating the most fundamental laws of physics—matter and antimatter should have been created [in a big bang] in exactly equal amounts. And then they should have promptly wiped each other out. Yet here we are.” Tim Folger, “Antimatter,” Discover, August 2004, p. 68.

t. “Within our galaxy, we can be confident that there are no stars of antimatter; otherwise, the pervasive interstellar medium would instigate annihilation and ensuing gamma-ray emission at a rate far in excess of that observed....One difficulty with the idea of antigalaxies lies in maintaining their separation from galaxies. Empty space may now separate them, but in the early universe, these regions must have been in relatively close contact. Annihilation seems difficult to avoid, particularly because we now know that many regions of intergalactic space are occupied by a tenuous gas. Interaction with the gas would make annihilation inevitable in antimatter regions, with the consequent emission of observable gamma radiation.” Joseph Silk, The Big Bang (San Francisco: W. H. Freeman and Co., 1980), p. 115.

“Also, as far as we know, there is no appreciable amount of antimatter in the universe.” Weinberg, p. 88.

POPSICLES 1

Make Your Own Juice Popsicles

What juices to put in the mold? My favorite is lemonade. If you use ready made juice or lemonade, you might want to boil it down first, reducing the juice by about a half, and add a little corn syrup. If you are using frozen concentrated juice, add half as much water as you would normally. The biggest problem with homemade juice popsicles is that they turn out too icy. A higher sugar to water ratio will help reduce the iciness, as will a little bit of corn syrup.
Add to shopping list
Ingredients

3/4 to 1 cup granulated sugar (depending on how sweet you want them, and if you are using Meyer lemons, use less sugar)
1 cup water
1 Tbsp light corn syrup
Zest of 2 lemons
1 cup of lemon juice (about 4 large lemons)

popsicle-2.jpg
Method

1 Heat 1 cup of water and 3/4 to 1 cup of granulated sugar in a small saucepan until the sugar has completely dissolved. Add the zest of 2 lemons and 1 Tbsp of light corn syrup into the sugar water (also called simple syrup). Bring to a simmer, then remove from heat and let cool.

2 Juice enough lemons (about 4) to produce 1 cup of lemon juice. Strain out any pulp. Add the simple syrup to the lemon juice, straining out the lemon zest as you pour the syrup into the juice.

3 Pour the lemon mixture into the popsicle molds. Put into a freezer for at least 4 hours to freeze. To unmold, run under hot water for a few seconds.

What juices to put in the mold? My favorite is lemonade. If you use ready made juice or lemonade, you might want to boil it down first, reducing the juice by about a half, and add a little corn syrup. If you are using frozen concentrated juice, add half as much water as you would normally. The biggest problem with homemade juice popsicles is that they turn out too icy. A higher sugar to water ratio will help reduce the iciness, as will a little bit of corn syrup.
Add to shopping list
Ingredients

3/4 to 1 cup granulated sugar (depending on how sweet you want them, and if you are using Meyer lemons, use less sugar)
1 cup water
1 Tbsp light corn syrup
Zest of 2 lemons
1 cup of lemon juice (about 4 large lemons)

popsicle-2.jpg
Method

1 Heat 1 cup of water and 3/4 to 1 cup of granulated sugar in a small saucepan until the sugar has completely dissolved. Add the zest of 2 lemons and 1 Tbsp of light corn syrup into the sugar water (also called simple syrup). Bring to a simmer, then remove from heat and let cool.

2 Juice enough lemons (about 4) to produce 1 cup of lemon juice. Strain out any pulp. Add the simple syrup to the lemon juice, straining out the lemon zest as you pour the syrup into the juice.

3 Pour the lemon mixture into the popsicle molds. Put into a freezer for at least 4 hours to freeze. To unmold, run under hot water for a few seconds.

POPSICLES 2 - The Dirty Pirate

We have thing for getting sideways with classic cocktails and then turning them into poptails. This week the classic rum and coke has been flipped to a Dirty Pirate.

That’s rum and coke with a some Kahlua. While we’d love to take credit for this awesomely name cocktail, we can’t, but we are taking credit for turning it into poptail ,at the suggestion of a co-worker.

Pirates, Coke and booze, yeah, Wednesday is getting better already. And just in case you need a variation, replace the Kahlua with peach schnapps for a Dirty Pirate Hooker.

Play nice and play safe. Happy Pirating this Wednesday.
Dirty Pirate Popsicle

2 1/2 cups Coke
1/3 cup Captain Morgan Spiced Rum
1/3 cup Kahlua

Instructions:

Place all ingredients in a large glass and stir to combine. Pour mixture into popsicles mold.
Freeze for about 2 hours or until mixture starts to solidify enough to hold a popsicle stick upright. Insert popsicle sticks and finish freezing popsicles overnight. To release popsicles run hot water on the outside of popsicle molds for a 2-3 seconds.

*Slightly flat Coke will produce a popsicle that stays frozen longer. To quickly and manually flatten out the carbonation, empty out enough Coke from a 2-liter bottle to leave a 3-inch space from top of bottle to top of coke. Place cap back on and shake vigorously for 10 seconds. Set aside to leave bubbles to subside.

POPSICLES 3 - Cucumber Honeydew Margarita Popsicles

Grab some popsicle sticks, get the tequila and leave the drunk dialing to others. We’re turning our tequila shots into a frozen Honeydew Cucumber Margarita.

But before your fingers start strumming your keyboard with inquiries as to whether or not the alcohol portions are strong enough, let us save you time and say, maybe it is, but then again maybe not. Luckily poptails are highly adaptable. Your palate, your preference — pour and mix your poptail to suit your taste. Just remember there’s a reason alcohol won’t freeze alone. Stiff drinks are meant to be consumed by the glass, not by the bite. Our proportions here err on the side of tasty over tequila-y.

Next time you’re tasked with bringing something to a party, let us suggest a tequila’d poptail that won’t leave you fearfully scrolling through your call history the next morning.

1. Place the honeydew and cucumber in a food processor or a blender and process until everything is pureed. Add tequila, triple sec, lime juice and mint syrup and process for another 20-30 seconds to blend well. Pour mixture into popsicles mold.

2. Freeze for about 2 hours or until mixture starts to solidify enough to hold a popsicle stick upright. Insert popsicle sticks and finish freezing popsicles overnight. To release popsicles run hot water on the outside of popsicle molds for a 2-3 seconds.

1. Place sugar and water in a pot over heat until sugar dissolves. Allow mixture to cool to room temperature and place mint leaves in mixture and muddle. Allow mint leaves to steep for 20 minutes. Strain and discard leaves. (Depending on the fineness of the sieve tiny pieces may remain).

Grab some popsicle sticks, get the tequila and leave the drunk dialing to others. We’re turning our tequila shots into a frozen Honeydew Cucumber Margarita.

But before your fingers start strumming your keyboard with inquiries as to whether or not the alcohol portions are strong enough, let us save you time and say, maybe it is, but then again maybe not. Luckily poptails are highly adaptable. Your palate, your preference — pour and mix your poptail to suit your taste. Just remember there’s a reason alcohol won’t freeze alone. Stiff drinks are meant to be consumed by the glass, not by the bite. Our proportions here err on the side of tasty over tequila-y.

Next time you’re tasked with bringing something to a party, let us suggest a tequila’d poptail that won’t leave you fearfully scrolling through your call history the next morning.

1. Place the honeydew and cucumber in a food processor or a blender and process until everything is pureed. Add tequila, triple sec, lime juice and mint syrup and process for another 20-30 seconds to blend well. Pour mixture into popsicles mold.

2. Freeze for about 2 hours or until mixture starts to solidify enough to hold a popsicle stick upright. Insert popsicle sticks and finish freezing popsicles overnight. To release popsicles run hot water on the outside of popsicle molds for a 2-3 seconds.

1. Place sugar and water in a pot over heat until sugar dissolves. Allow mixture to cool to room temperature and place mint leaves in mixture and muddle. Allow mint leaves to steep for 20 minutes. Strain and discard leaves. (Depending on the fineness of the sieve tiny pieces may remain).

I am strangely drawn to them. Perhaps the Theory of Gravity explains this situation.
Theory are so useful to describe the world we live in. Ain't real science grand?

I am strangely drawn to them. Perhaps the Theory of Gravity explains this situation.
Theory are so useful to describe the world we live in. Ain't real science grand?

Agreed. I too am strangely drawn to their cool, green liquorness.
My attraction to them did not evolve: I saw them, and the attraction was there instantly, with no build up or anything vaguely resembling evolution. Darwin was so wrong. Evolution is mere speculation caused by green popsicle virginity.

Thanks Optimus - you are kind, however this is no thread hijack.
These popsicles hold important insight into our naive adoption of evolution theory. The recipes are very topical. Combined with Pahu's Big Bang cut and pastes, they present compelling evidence that Pahu is nuts.